Dismissed

Samrul Islam and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2022Bail Appln./1938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations under the NDPS Act for possessing commercial quantities of codeine phosphate cough syrup. The court held that Section 37(1)(b) creates a stringent bar, preventing favorable consideration of bail at the pre-charge stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; accused given liberty to file fresh bail application in trial court.

Samrul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010152412022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1938/2022

¶5

SAMRUL ISLAM AND ANR. S/O YASIN ALI R/O VIL- PAIKAN GUMRAH P.S. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶6

2: MONWAR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA S/O ABDUL RAJAK BARBHUIYA R/O VILL- PAIKAN GUMRAH P.S. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR ASSA VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 08.09.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. B Chetri, learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as Mr. BB

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Gogoi, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State resdnent.

¶16

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners, namely, 1. Samrul Islam and 2. Monwar Hussain Barbhuiya have prayed for grant of bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/2022 ( Badarpur PS Case No. 35/2022) under Sections 21 ( c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶17

The scanned copy of the case records is received.

¶18

Mr. B Chetri, learned counsel for the accused petitioners, submits that the accused persons are languishing in jail since 03.02.2022 in the instant charge-sheeted case despite being absolutely innocent. According to Mr. Chetri, the accused petitioners had no knowledge that 377 cartons of cough syrup bottles were carried in the seized truck, with which they had no connection. They were just travelling on the deck of the said truck. Mr. Chetri vehemently submits that the provisions of the NDPS Act, under which they are booked, are not attracted to the case of the accused petitioners and they are made the victims of circumstances.

¶19

Opposing the bail application, Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that in this case, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 21 (c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act on 30.06.2022 against the accused petitioners for recovery and seizure of 37,770 bottles of codeine phosphate based cough syrup, which amounted to commercial quantity. Therefore, in view of the stringent bar in granting bail in the matter involving commercial quantity of contraband provided under Section 37 (1) ( b) of the NDPS Act, the bail application of the accused petitioners may not be considered.

¶20

The FIR reveals the allegation that on the basis of source information of transportation of a huge quantity of suspected Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances from Guwahati side towards Agartala on 02.02.2022, a naka checking was conducted by the informant and his team and intercepted one vehicle and recovered 377 cartons of Chlorpheniramine Maleate & codeine Phosphate Cough Linctus ‘ Pensedyl containing

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

110 bottles

¶23

It is noticed that the accused persons are under judicial custody for 217 days since 03.02.2022

¶24

A perusal of the case record reveals that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 21 (c) /25/29 of the NDPS Act vide order, dated 30.06.2022 for possessing and transporting commercial quantity of codeine phosphate based cough syrup bottles. The case is presently pending for consideration of charges. In such backdrop of facts and circumstances and in view of the stringent bar under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act, this court is of the opinion, the bail application of the accused petitioners cannot be considered favourably at the present pre-charge framing stage.

¶25

For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands rejected.

¶26

However, the accused petitioner is given liberty to file fresh bail application, if so advised and if such bail application is filed, the same shall be disposed of by the learned court below in accordance with law.

¶27

The learned trial court shall make an endeavour to expedite trial of the case, to ensure speedy justice to both sides.

¶28

The bail application is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Samrul Islam and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samrul Islam and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumar Dutta @ Dulu Dutta Vs the State of Assam

Hafijur Rahman and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Billal Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Ibrahim Ali Vs the State of Assam

Chanuwar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Tenzin Norbu Langla @ Ten Norbbu Vs the State of Assam